Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm bringing this up because of what's going on in the Jody Arias trial.
The trial has reached a point in which things are pretty much deadlocked. The jury has decided that she is guilty but they cannot come to a decision on her sentencing. Because of this, the court is having to call another jury to decide her fate but there are problems. Where are they going to find jurors that haven't heard, seen or gossiped about this case?
News stations, especially HLN, has had heavy coverage. Whether you hate her or not, this is America...she needs a fair trial. Where are they going to find the people to give her a fair trial now? And its not just the juror issue. People involved in this case are being stalked and threatened.
If we did not have cameras in the court, we wouldn't have this issue. From OJ to Casey Anthony and Arias...there are too many cameras.
Do you think we have continue to air trial coverage the way that we do?
The only person that should be allowed to document ANY trial should be the court stenographer and nobody else. No cameras, no journalists, no audio devices.
First of all, Federal Courts do not allow cameras of any sort in the Court room. So... who the "we" are who should stop having cameras in the court rooms of their state needs to be defined.
As a citizen and a former journalist, I would argue that with rare exception cameras in the court room have ZERO affect on the trial. Pointing to the Arias or O.J. Simpson trials is like arguing that because a two people got sick eating a banana while 154,000 did not (actual estimate of criminal trials per year), is more than a bit extreme.
As for journalist in general being banned from court rooms. All trials are public and of all the places where the workings of government must be exposed to full view it is in the nations court rooms. As a result the ability of journalist to report on how justice is administered is a fundamental responsibility of journalist and as such should not, cannot be abridged.
First of all, Federal Courts do not allow cameras of any sort in the Court room. So... who the "we" are who should stop having cameras in the court rooms of their state needs to be defined.
As a citizen and a former journalist, I would argue that with rare exception cameras in the court room have ZERO affect on the trial. Pointing to the Arias or O.J. Simpson trials is like arguing that because a two people got sick eating a banana while 154,000 did not (actual estimate of criminal trials per year), is more than a bit extreme.
As for journalist in general being banned from court rooms. All trials are public and of all the places where the workings of government must be exposed to full view it is in the nations court rooms. As a result the ability of journalist to report on how justice is administered is a fundamental responsibility of journalist and as such should not, cannot be abridged.
Honestly, I have no issue with journalist being in the courtroom. As long as they leave their cameramen outside, that is. In these high profile cases, its a matter of safety to me. I pointed out the stalking, the threats...people are scared for their lives in situations like this.
Nothing wrong with journalists doing their job but the cameras just add an unnecessary element. People should watch the news for information not entertainment. If they want crime drama, let them watch Law & Order, NCIS, The First 48, etc. There are a million of those things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.